When I inquired why the fact that a previous application for this site in 1990 had been refused, one of the reasons being:
"The proposed development would result in a serious loss of privacy now enjoyed by adjoining residents"
was not a sufficient reason to refuse the application on this occasion, the response was:
"planning policies and government advice has changed considerably over that decade. We now, for example, have to accept infilling and greater densities much more than before, in order to reduce the amount of "Greenfield" land taken for new homes. There is certainly no guarantee that an appeal based on this proposal now on this land would have the same result as in 1990"
It is certainly true that PPG3 recommends a minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare but it does not specify that this is to be achieved at the expense of privacy!